Positionnal play ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but one must recognise the positional dynamics before one can start to formulate a strategy.

"positional dynamics" is a pseudonym for tactics, by definition positional considerations are not dynamic.

Originally posted by tomtom232
"positional dynamics" is a pseudonym for tactics, by definition positional considerations are not dynamic.

no, its not, its the recognition of certain elements (dynamics) within the position which warrant a specific course of action. They may be static, they may not be. They may be able to be realised tactically, they may be realised strategically, its most probable is a combination of both. The point is of course, that we recognise those elements (dynamics) and utilise them.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Sorry, but moving a rook to an open file without being able to list a number of move sequences, but aiming at maximising the chances for favourable continuations is a positional move in my book.

And to what GP just wrote above, where is the tactic involved in 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, knowing that there are thousands of pages of continuations documented from that ...[text shortened]... re prone to tactical play doesn't make the opening moves tactical! They are just opening moves.

I agree with Mephisto completely here - for me the only difference between a positional move and a tactical one, is that I make a positional move when I don't see any favorable tactics 🙂 Another way to say it might be - for me a positional move is one I make in the hopes of creating favorable tactics, its based on principles like those in the article above rather than a hard calculation or a set of forced moves.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, its not, its the recognition of certain elements (dynamics) within the position which warrant a specific course of action. They may be static, they may not be. They may be able to be realised tactically, they may be realised strategically, its most probable is a combination of both. The point is of course, that we recognise those elements (dynamics) and utilise them.

There is no such thing as a better position without tactics. There is also no such thing as a better position without strategy. Point: They are inseparable ideas, intertwined throughout the entire game.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Sorry, but moving a rook to an open file without being able to list a number of move sequences, but aiming at maximising the chances for favourable continuations is a positional move in my book.

And to what GP just wrote above, where is the tactic involved in 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, knowing that there are thousands of pages of continuations documented from that ...[text shortened]... re prone to tactical play doesn't make the opening moves tactical! They are just opening moves.

Wrong. All threats are tactical, the knight is threatening to take the pawn.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Wrong. All threats are tactical, the knight is threatening to take the pawn.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong (I probably am). If not, then I seriously disagree.

All threats are tactical, the knight is threatening to take the pawn.

All threats are tactical? In the queen's gambit - whats the tactical advantage of black
taking the pawn? Hm?

White has a definite threat in the dissolution of that pawn.

All threats are tactical

What about your clock? This is not tactical or strategical - but like it or not, it may
become the most controlling factor, and threat to your game of chess. Clock
management in over the board chess seems to systemically get better as does
playing ability. Master class correspondence players manage there time incredibly
efficiently. This is not coincidence.

All threats are tactical

Can you tactically explain the threat of a fianchettoed bishop? Is it not a threat?
This is a strategical display of effective force, though not purely concrete in effect.
A rook on an open file - or behind a passed pawn. This is not "tactical", at least
not yet. Strategical threats are just as important as tactical threats, and they each
exist separately.

Quite often one may lead to the other.

A pattern of the game; long tactical concrete variations often expose strategical
flaws, and threats. Prolonged and unanswered strategical threats convert into
tactical combination's.

Its our own indecency as players which disrupts the system, certainly. Its this very
principle which makes the game incomprehensible, and yet playable. In time we
realize, the pressure of the game is on the man, its on the mind. So herein, we play
to beat the man.


Not all threats are tactical, many other types of threats continually decide matches.

Its developing a sense of different types of threats, that is learning Chess.

-GIN

Originally posted by Nowakowski
Maybe I'm reading this wrong (I probably am). If not, then I seriously disagree.

[b]All threats are tactical, the knight is threatening to take the pawn.

All threats are tactical? In the queen's gambit - whats the tactical advantage of black
taking the pawn? Hm?

White has a definite threat in the dissolution of that pawn.

All threat ...[text shortened]... ing a sense of different types of threats, that is learning Chess.
[/quote]

-GIN

If you threaten to do something then your opponent can only stop it tactically. Preparing to move your bishop to a certain square is not a threat unless it is threatening, it is not threatening unless it creates some sort of advantage, it cannot create this advantage and not be tactical. To put it simpler: you don't go from an even position, make one single move, call it purely strategical and then say you're winning. Its not at all easy to explain but it is proven by chess engines, they brush the best of the best off the board because they are many times better tactically. If you pretend its a human you would call some moves positional but how could this be when the engine has not a hint of anything strategical? Its because ALL threats are tactical.

The threat of a concrete advantage is, by definition, tactical. If you force a sequence of moves that, as a result, give you an advantage it must be tactical. The only thing that is positional is the position itself.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
Sorry, but moving a rook to an open file without being able to list a number of move sequences, but aiming at maximising the chances for favourable continuations is a positional move in my book.

And to what GP just wrote above, where is the tactic involved in 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, knowing that there are thousands of pages of continuations documented from that ...[text shortened]... re prone to tactical play doesn't make the opening moves tactical! They are just opening moves.

Sure there is a tactic at work in 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
It's especially obvious with the 2. Nf3 move.
a few posters have defined a tactic to be a forcing continuation.
well, with his second move, white is forcing black to do something about his undefended e5 pawn. Black can either defend the pawn with the usual 2. ... Nc6, or he can counter attack against white's undefended e4 pawn with 2. ... Nf6. In any case, white is forcing a reaction to his move. This is why Nf3 is more popular than the Vienna Game with 2. Nc3, which doesn't force a reaction, and thus is a sub-par "tactic"

Originally posted by tomtom232
Wrong. All threats are tactical, the knight is threatening to take the pawn.

The knight is able to capture the pawn on e5. Is that a threat, let alone does that make 2.Nf3 a tactic? No. The knight also 'covers' square d4. Depending on the positions that arise, this can become equally or even more relevant than capturing the pawn. Does that make 2.Nf3 a 'tactical move' or 'threat'? This same move also allows the bishop from f1 to move, for instance to square a6 (besides a few other interesting squares, lol). And so on. Quite a task for black to find a tactical move that counters this extremely deep 'tactic' 2.Nf3. Are you serious? I'm sorry, but I find it increasingly hard to remain serious now in this little debate.

Originally posted by Mephisto2
The knight is able to capture the pawn on e5. Is that a threat, let alone does that make 2.Nf3 a tactic? No. The knight also 'covers' square d4. Depending on the positions that arise, this can become equally or even more relevant than capturing the pawn. Does that make 2.Nf3 a 'tactical move' or 'threat'? This same move also allows the bishop from f1 to mo ...[text shortened]... I'm sorry, but I find it increasingly hard to remain serious now in this little debate.

Yes, strategy is how you move your pieces and tactics is where you move them.

This debate reminds me of the pure versus applied mathematics debate. Is there any real difference between pure and applied mathematics? Positional and tactical chess? Ultimately i think the answer to both those questions is no, they are both different aspects of the same thing and you can't have one without the other.

Hi Diophantus

Yes.

I had no idea my 2,Nf3 'the tactics have started' line was going to fuel such a debate.

2.Nf3 is a threat to the e-pawn

It's a tactic.

It centralises and develops a piece, it's positional.

There is no threat to the e-pawn.
Theorectically Black can defend it tactically with 2...Nf6.
Back to tactics again

2.Nf3 blocks the f-pawn, it's anti-positional. (Philidor said this.)

Round and round in one big circle.

Tactics and Positional play compliment each other, you cannot have one
without the other.

The 'rare' totally positional game will always have tactics just under the surface.

You threaten a b7-pawn forcing it to move creating a weak square on c6.
You have just used tactics to gain a positional advantage.

You see these 'softening up' the opponents pawn structure using tactcial
threats in Capablanca's games. Do you label Capa a tactcial player?

Tal creating a target pawn on the Queenside to lure a defensive piece
out of position so he can start a kingside attack. Tal is a positional player?

The only difference between tactics and positional, to me anyway.

It's far easier to explain a tactcial move than a postional move.

The first is based on calcualtion and variations which you can demonstrate.

The second is based on guidlines, principles and experience.

"Why did you play 15.Rd1?"

"To centralise the Rook, to bring it into the game, it's a natural move
you just make in these postions....it has no reason...it's good."

And way back at the beginning of this thread this was the
'I don't know moment' I was warning Audrey about.

I think that some moves get labelled as positional because the person who moved doesn't actually know why they did it. They have to move something, there are no opportunities that can be seen so they do something that does as little damage to their own position as possible. If it then leaves a piece hanging it becomes a blunder if the game is lost, or a sacrifice if the game is won. Possibly a positional sacrifice if the game is won later but there is no obvious immediate benefit from "losing" the piece. I have often thought the Benko Gambit to be a slip that turned out to be good for black! Maybe I am just getting a touch cynical in my old age.

A great book on the subject is "Winning Chess Tactics" by Yasser Seirawan. My game got much better after going through it.

Also like the quote from an earlier post:
"Personally, my opinion is that the only thing a bishop is good for is killing knights. This may seem a bit extreme but I have an itsy bitsy problem seeing knight moves… "

I often feel the same way, especially in endgames. I hate when my opponent has a knight to my bishop in endgames. Always forking my pieces.